论人民法院在非诉讼纠纷解决机制（ADR）中的作用

发布时间：2018-03-11 10:43

本文选题：非诉讼纠纷解决机制　切入点：人民法院　出处：《吉林大学》2011年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：纵观我国五千年的历史,我们对和谐的追求从来没停止过。然而无论社会发展到什么程度都不可避免的产生冲突和纠纷。虽然当今是法治社会,诉讼是纠纷解决的主要渠道,但是非诉讼纠纷解决机制(ADR)也以其灵活、方便、快捷的特点为大家广为接受,成为一种重要的纠纷解决途径。ADR也并非一种完美的制度,实践中,由于各种各样的原因,使得ADR本身存在一些很难克服的局限性。本文第一章主要是针对非诉讼纠纷解决机制的弱点和局限性出发进行分析。非诉讼纠纷解决机制(ADR)的主要缺点分为两类:第一类是“不能”,非诉讼纠纷解决机制(ADR)自身缺乏国家强制力的保障,程序和效力上缺乏“刚性”。第二类是“不法”,非诉讼纠纷解决机制(ADR)的程序缺乏规范性,容易导致权利的滥用和其他不法结果的产生。人民法院是纠纷化解的专门机关,担负着化解矛盾建设和谐社会的重要责任。而人民法院作为国家公权力的代表,在一定程度上与非诉讼纠纷解决机制表现出很大的互补性。第二章针对非诉讼纠纷解决机制(ADR)自身软弱的弱点提出人民法院应当对ADR进行必要的支持和帮助,这种支持和帮助不仅是指简单的业务指导,还包括程序上的支持以及对结果的确认与执行。第三章提出对非诉讼纠纷解决机制(ADR)进行限制和监督,这主要是针对非诉讼纠纷解决机制(ADR)的第二类弱点。由于运用非诉讼纠纷解决机制(ADR)的过程中可能出现各种问题,所以有必要对其进行监督。显然,并不是所有的案件都适合采用非诉讼纠纷解决机制(ADR)进行解决,现实中还是有不少争端更适合采取诉讼加判决的模式解决,因此人民法院不应一味引导当事人采取非诉讼纠纷解决机制。人民法院对于ADR的支持并不是无条件的,需要坚持合法性和合理性的前提,更多的情况下人民法院要承担监督者的重要责任。第四章比较诉讼与非诉讼纠纷解决机制(ADR)两种纠纷解决途径,诉讼途径程序正规,法律保障充分,与法律的契合程度比较高,但是同时诉讼程序也存在很多缺点,周期冗长,效率低下,司法资源占用过多,官方色彩太浓导致不易为当事人所理解等等。非诉讼纠纷解决机制在一定程度上能够解决诉讼程序的一些弊端,然而绝大多数非诉讼纠纷解决机制却又陷入了另一个怪圈,远离国家司法权力——得不到国家强制力支持而且会受到国家司法权力的怀疑。针对这种情况本章提出积极发展司法ADR的主张,司法ADR是司法程序和非诉讼纠纷解决机制的结合,如果适用得当,既能克服司法程序机械、冗长效率不高的缺点又能克服本文在第一章中提出的非诉讼纠纷解决机制(ADR)的弱点。
[Abstract]:Throughout our five thousand years of history, our pursuit of harmony has never stopped. However, no matter how far the society develops, conflicts and disputes inevitably arise. Although today is a society ruled by law, litigation is the main channel for dispute resolution. However, the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism (ADR) is also widely accepted by all because of its flexible, convenient and quick characteristics, and has become an important dispute resolution approach. ADR is not a perfect system. In practice, because of various reasons, Make ADR itself have some very difficult to overcome the limitations. The first chapter analyzes the weakness and limitation of the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism. The main shortcomings of the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism are divided into two categories: the first is "cannot", and the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism is non-litigation dispute resolution machine. The ADR system itself lacks the guarantee of national compulsion. Lack of "rigidity" in procedure and effectiveness. The second category is "illegal", and the procedure of non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism (ADRR) is not standardized, which can easily lead to the abuse of rights and the production of other illegal results. The people's court is a specialized organ for the resolution of disputes. The people's court, as the representative of the public power of the state, is complementary to the non-litigation dispute settlement mechanism to some extent. In the second chapter, aiming at the weakness of non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism, the people's court should provide necessary support and help to ADR. This kind of support and help is not only simple business guidance. It also includes procedural support and validation and execution of results. The third chapter proposes to limit and supervise the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism (ADR), which is mainly aimed at the second kind of weakness of the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism (ADR). So it is necessary to supervise it. Obviously, not all cases are suitable for non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism. In reality, there are still many disputes that are more suitable for litigation and adjudication. Therefore, the people's court should not blindly guide the parties to adopt the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism. The people's court's support for ADR is not unconditional, and it needs to adhere to the premise of legitimacy and rationality. More often, the people's court should bear the important responsibility of the supervisor. Chapter 4th compares the litigation and non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism (ADR). The litigation procedure is formal, the legal protection is sufficient, and the degree of agreement with the law is relatively high. But at the same time, the litigation procedure also has many shortcomings and the cycle is long. Low efficiency, too much occupation of judicial resources, too much official color, etc. Non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism can solve some disadvantages of litigation procedure to some extent. However, the vast majority of non-litigation dispute resolution mechanisms have fallen into another strange circle. Far from the judicial power of the state-it is not supported by the state's coercive power and will be doubted by the state's judicial power. In view of this situation, the author puts forward the idea of actively developing the judicial ADR, which is the combination of judicial procedure and non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism. If it is applied properly, it can not only overcome the shortcomings of judicial procedure machinery, but also overcome the weakness of the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism proposed in Chapter one of this paper.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D925.14;D926.2

【参考文献】